Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed sentencing of ‘Urewera Four’ members – comparisons made with treatment of complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges – complainant phoned in to the programme and explained background to his case – hosts accused him of lying and called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – hosts’ use of the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” and comparison with “Hannibal Lecter” amounted to personal abuse – Mr Shapiro unable to defend himself as phone call had ended – Mr Shapiro treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance – however, item did not…...

...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-094 Dated the 17th day of July 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by S V R YOUNG of Christchurch Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Beyond the Darklands: Bert Potter – programme was a case study of Bert Potter based on analysis by a clinical psychologist and recollections of former members of his Centrepoint commune – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme was a case study by psychologist of Bert Potter and his involvement in Centrepoint – historical interest for viewers but no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate points of fact – programme would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individuals or organisations treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 54/94 Dated the 7th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 64/95 Decision No: 65/95 Dated the 20th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MEGAVITAMIN LABORATORIES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED and DR WARREN STEWART of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R A Barraclough Co-opted member...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-123 Decision No: 1996-124 Dated the 3rd day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DUPONT (NEW ZEALAND) LTD Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio New Zealand News – item reported that pedestrian had been hit by a bus in Wellington – newsreader stated, “St John Ambulance says a woman in her mid-forties was hit by a bus on the corner of Hunter and Featherston streets… A spokesperson says the woman sustained moderate injuries and was transferred to Wellington hospital…” – reference to St John Ambulance allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reference to St John Ambulance was not material to the focus of the item and would not have misled listeners in any material respect – not upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – Wellington Free Ambulance did not take part and was not referred to in the broadcast so listeners would not have been left with an unfairly negative impression of it as an organisation – in any event the reference to St John Ambulance was…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on couple's experience with the complainant, a mechanic – included disputed claims about couple's dealings with mechanic – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item created negative impression of the complainant but he was provided with a fair opportunity to comment and his response was fairly presented in the item – complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – claims presented as couple's interpretation and opinion of events, not points of fact (guideline 5a) – viewers would have understood that claims were one side of the story and were disputed by the complainant so they would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – discussed the severe allergic reactions two women had experienced as a result of a chemical used in their hair dye – focused on a chemical named paraphenylenediamine – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate or misleading statements – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to seek comment from the industry body – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on TV One’s Close Up programme, broadcast on 25 May 2007 at 7pm, discussed the severe allergic reactions two women had experienced as a result of a chemical used in their hair dye....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority’s determination of the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eye to Eye – host asked his guests whether the Labour or Māori Party candidate would win the seat of Tai Tokerau in the upcoming election – did not mention a third candidate for the electorate – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 (balance) – not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Eye to Eye, broadcast on TV One at 9. 30am on 5 February 2005, the host asked his two female guests whether Dover Samuels (Labour Party) or Hone Harawira (Māori Party) would win the seat of Tai Tokerau in the upcoming election....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989George FM – radio hosts made comments about complaints to council in respect of a road closure for street party – allegedly in breach of privacy and unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsPrinciple 3 (privacy) – broadcast not offensive – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – controversial issue of public importance not discussed – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – comments were fair comment – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – not a news or current affairs programme – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Monday 22 August 2005 at approximately 12. 30pm, the hosts on George FM made comments about a party that the radio station had held. Particular reference was made to a person who had called the council a number of times in an attempt to close the event....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item about Government surplus – phrase “slush fund” used in reference to Government surplus – allegedly inaccurate and inappropriate as it suggested corruption on part of the GovernmentFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – in context phrase is accepted colloquial expression to describe discretionary funds – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Breakfast on TV One 26 May 2004 dealt with the issue of the Government surplus and the 2004 budget process. The reporter referred to the surplus as a “slush fund. ” Complaint [2] Mike Frawley complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, regarding the use of the term “slush fund. ” Mr Frawley, citing the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, said that the term “slush fund” raised perceptions of “bribery or illicit political activities....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item explained where bank loans come from – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item gave accurate description of how bank loans are created – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 20 October 2008, was introduced as follows: The global credit crunch is forcing more governments to prop up their banks and guarantee borrowing. So what does that mean for New Zealanders trying to get a loan? In tonight’s special report we send Garth Bray to find out where the money you borrow comes from. [2] Reporting from a kitchen, Mr Bray offered the following explanation: Think of a bank loan like baking a cake....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Radio – news item reported developments on the decision by the Nelson-Marlborough District Health Board (NMDHB) to end its contract with the Nelson Diagnostic Laboratory – reported statement from the planning and funding general manager for the NMDHB that Medlab South had undertaken to employ all 42 current staff members – allegedly inaccurateFindingsPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – did not make a statement of fact about re-employment – accurately reported the statement from the DHB representative – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item broadcast on National Radio at midday on 8 June 2006 reported on the decision by the Nelson-Marlborough District Health Board (NMDHB) to end its contract with the Nelson Diagnostic Laboratory....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – item reported on two bodies being found on top of a rail “carriage” – allegedly inaccurate Findings Principle 6 (accuracy) – use of “carriage” technically inaccurate – distinction between carriage and wagon has been blurred by common usage over time – upholding the complaint would be an unjustified limit on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Two news bulletin items, broadcast on Newstalk ZB at 6. 30am and 7am respectively on Thursday 12 June 2008, reported on the discovery of two bodies on top of a rail wagon in a railway yard in Christchurch. [2] During the first item the presenter stated: Christchurch police have confirmed two bodies were found overnight at a railway yard in the city. . ....

ComplaintFair Go – rare breeds of sheep put in care as owner had cancer – organiser of care took two flocks herself – owner sought to recover sheep – care organiser believed she owned sheep – no contract – inaccurate – unclear – unbalanced – editing which distorted FindingsStandard G4 – inadequate opportunity to respond – uphold Standards G1, G3, G6, G7, G19 – subsumed OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary David Tuart, an owner of some rare sheep species, required treatment for cancer. Dr Beverley Trowbridge, a fellow breeder of rare sheep species, arranged for his flocks to be distributed among other farmers. After Mr Tuart had been treated, Dr Trowbridge refused to return some of the sheep as she believed that she had been given ownership of them....